You struggle to understand how SL is over-rated when it's a month since they lost to Bangladesh?

And you seem to think that SL is the only team in the world to lose to Bangladesh? In fact, BD have played them more than most major nations so you can excuse them for dropping a dead rubber . When was the last time any major nation played Bangladesh in their own country? I'm pretty sure, it ain't a month ago so that argument is pretty stupid tbh.

And you seem to think that SL is the only team in the world to lose to Bangladesh? In fact, BD have played them more than most major nations so you can excuse them for dropping a dead rubber . When was the last time any major nation played Bangladesh in their own country? I'm pretty sure, it ain't a month ago so that argument is pretty stupid tbh.

NZ did and we lost one match. Also SA had a series there and were pushed in one Test match. Bangladesh at home are quite good, though only because of Shakib, all the other spinners, Mortaza, Ashraful and Tamim.

Against an understrength Australia, they also got beaten by England recently too. I mean they're a good team but still on par with the full strength Indian and Australian teams.

There was no Graeme Smith, Ashwell Prince, Justin Kemp (ICL but his big hitting capabilities could have been handy as opposed to McKenzie) and Mark Boucher. Australia's main losses were Stuart Clark, Bracken, Symonds and Clarke. Yet Australia were smashed in the 4th ODI.

I remembered that SL whitewashed England in a 5 match series during 2006 but they had a really **** bowling line-up.

NZ did and we lost one match. Also SA had a series there and were pushed in one Test match. Bangladesh at home are quite good, though only because of Shakib, all the other spinners, Mortaza, Ashraful and Tamim.

Still crap away.

Australia only won by three wickets in a test chasing 300 odd, they were in huge trouble before Gilchrist made a century.

There was no Graeme Smith, Ashwell Prince, Justin Kemp (ICL but his big hitting capabilities could have been handy as opposed to McKenzie) and Mark Boucher. Australia's main losses were Stuart Clark, Bracken, Symonds and Clarke. Yet Australia were smashed in the 4th ODI.

Going back to Kemp is like going back to Gilchrist.

The loss of Australia's bowling far outweighed the batting losses, Bracken Lee and Clark are their 3 frontline ODI bowlers along with Johnson and all of them were missing. If SA were missing Steyn Ntini and Morkel they'd be in a fair bit of strife too. Australia are better than you give them credit for, while they're probably not the best anymore but they are still certainly right up there.

India = most over-rated (by some of the Indian team supporters, esp. here)

India = most under--rated (by some of the non-Indian supporters, esp. here)

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Against an understrength Australia, they also got beaten by England recently too. I mean they're a good team but still on par with the full strength Indian and Australian teams.

never had much time for the 'under strength team' argument. Australia put forward they team they (well selectors anyway) deemed the best at that point in time. Strength of a team includes how they play even when players may be missing.

never had much time for the 'under strength team' argument. Australia put forward they team they (well selectors anyway) deemed the best at that point in time. Strength of a team includes how they play even when players may be missing.

Reckon it just sucks when so many are missing. I mean I'm a NZer we're lucky if we can ever get a full strength XI on the paddock.

Reckon it just sucks when so many are missing. I mean I'm a NZer we're lucky if we can ever get a full strength XI on the paddock.

Know the feeling - Associates in particular haemorrhage their top players either to England (like there aren't enough Englishmen who could make a team) or to other jobs where they can earn better money. Doesn't mean that the team should be judged by anything else than how they perform on the pitch.

Know the feeling - Associates in particular haemorrhage their top players either to England (like there aren't enough Englishmen who could make a team) or to other jobs where they can earn better money. Doesn't mean that the team should be judged by anything else than how they perform on the pitch.

I just think its worth taking into consideration that a group of highly talented players weren't in the team when they beat them who will be in the team again.

I've said Pakistan, purely because they barely play anymore sadly, but are rated as a top team, whereas the reality is that its hard to say where they really sit at the moment.

I guess NZ are so perenially underrated, esp. in ODIs, that its become something of a cliche. England might be, just becuase of their prevailing direness over the past 30-odd years in limited overs stuff, people tend to assume they remain dire no matter what is happening.

Those are all grasping at straws really however, as I don't think any teams are commonly over or under rated.

And I have to agree that all of MendisNuffSaid's posts at the moment do seem to feature a heavy element of schadenfreude and gloating towards the Aussie team, masquerading as considered analysis, but y'know, whatever...

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team